On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:57:35AM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: > I have submitted a new version of the LWIG guidance document, with a > new section 2 on terminology. This tries to reflect the need for > clearer terminology that became apparent in the discussion we had > during the COMAN ad-hoc meeting at IETF 84. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-guidance-02#section-2 > Diff: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lwig-guidance-02 > > I'm looking forward to your comments.
This is useful, thanks for writing it down. I am not sure what the term "challenged network" really buys us. I did not see the term "challenged network" actually used in RFC4838, but I do understand that the DTN community used this term. My preference would be to move the three bullets currently in 2.2.1 up to section 2.2. and to collapse 2.2.1 into a note that simply explains that the term "challenged network" has been used for a certain subset of constrained networks as part of the DTN work. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
